So according to Barack Obama, the Republican jobs plan seeks to create dirty air, dirty water, and no health care for the population. Yes, and it also encourages those evil railroad companies to put Grandma out of her house, the oil companies to rape the land and God knows what else evil it shall wrought. His plan, on the other hand, is designed to save the jobs of teachers and state workers (first responders he calls them) and there lies one major difference between Obama and the GOP. Obama wishes to save the jobs of teachers and state workers because in Obama's rendition of the new math, a job saved is a job created. The GOP, conversely, seeks to create jobs preferably through the private sector, by removing onerous and ridiculous regulations (many of them at the hand of an out-of-control EPA). But, Obama would rather have his little laugh as he appeals to his liberal base and seeks to corner the environmentalist vote which I did not know was a huge voting bloc. If not, then his characterization is so off the mark that it does not demand the attention it has been getting.
But, not to be outdone, Nobel Prize winning "economist" and Obama brown noser, Paul Krugman, recently wrote an editorial supporting this theory of dirty air and water. While it may be true that the GOP plan draws from an American Petroleum Institute study of job creation in the energy sector, his attack on the GOP reliance uses the very arguments he rails against. He cites a single study by some college in Massachusetts that shows that the energy sector, through the creation of pollution, exacts a greater toll in public health problems than in the advantages to society (as in good wages, benefits and those other tangible things). Whereas he criticizes the GOP for relying on a single study by the API, he then cites a single study by some college which, incidentally, admits up front that it is exceedingly difficult to quantify the things they then nevertheless quantify.
And speaking of the EPA, they were founded to govern our environmental laws based on the fact that dirty air and water are a detriment to the public health and that the government can therefore regulate in this area. I do not believe there is a single member of the Republican Party who would advocate dirty air and water. However, somewhere along the line, the scales have tipped too far towards the environmental concerns that it has exceeded its authority. How could the migratory habits of seasonal fowl and horned owls and newts in a river affect the general public health? One reform that is needed- and I am not one to call for the abolition of the EPA outright- is to require societal cost/benefit analysis when enacting regulations and if the regulation disproportionately affects the economy, then look for option B. Otherwise, the average Joe won't have a job to see the environment the EPA seeks to save through regulation.
There is absolutely no doubt that government regulations cost businesses billions annually. And there are numerous studies documenting this fact on both sides of the political spectrum. It is an objective fact which Krugman and company surprisingly ignore. And there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that when the pipeline that would connect the oil fields in Canada with our refineries in Texas is considered, the EPA will interject and interfere with what should be a no-brainer in meeting our energy needs and creating jobs along the way. And how this will affect the "public health" will remain to be seen.
This is much like Obama's hell bent insistence on "green jobs." The Solyndra debacle aside, this is nothing but a liberal pipe dream. If the purpose of that agenda is to create good paying jobs while helping the environment and decreasing (dare I say it?) the emissions of green house gases, I have an even better green jobs program that ties in with that regulation thing Obama rails in favor of lest we have "dirty air and dirty water." It is called nuclear energy. It produces very little, if any, greenhouse gases. However, the same people who argue for their rendition of a green jobs agenda misinforms the public with scare tactics about nuclear energy. While it may be very expensive to bring a nuclear plant online, most of that cost is due to construction costs and the regulations (that word again) associated with it, not to mention the costly litigation from tree huggers along the way. A careful, honest, sober analysis of nuclear energy reveals that the only drawback is nuclear waste. Of course, Yucca Mountain is out of the question as long as Harry Reid controls the Senate, but there are other solutions. France, which gets something like 85% of their energy from nukes, partially recycles their spent rods. Why can't we? Wouldn't that alone create good paying jobs that also help the environment? Why isn't nuclear energy included in the portfolio of green jobs or alternative energy sources?
The problem for Obama is that he has become a lackey for the liberals within the Democratic Party and a shill for the environmental movement. He also has a bigger problem: the economy and, specifically, jobs. With a nagging 9.1% unemployment rate nationally, he calls for a jobs bill to save the jobs of teachers and state workers. Incidentally, the unemployment rate among public workers is somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%. Yet, we are to go into deeper debt to save the jobs of a voting bloc apt to vote Democratic in November, 2012. Then he accuses the GOP of playing politics. Because he occupies the White House does not mean that he is above playing the very games of which he accuses his opponents. Having the "bully pulpit" does not make you correct.
A few months ago when Obama was out touting some economic plan or something, he stated that the while his plan was trying to move the car forward, the Republicans were trying to go in reverse. Of course, he then trotted out the "same failed policy of the Bush years" line that today falls on deaf ears, something he does not seem to understand. Then he doubled down on that little ditty of an analogy and said the GOP was trying to drive the car into a ditch. News flash: the economy is in a ditch and has been for a while. Everything he has proposed since has made those wheels spin more wildly in the muck. And it got worst on Obama's watch while driving the Nation deeper into debt with failed stimulus designed "to take advantage of a crisis." That advantage was taken to the disadvantage of all. Hopefully, voters will not fall for Obama's nonsense again in 2012. He has had three years to take a bad situation and make it considerably worse. If this Nation wants job creation in the private sector, there is only one solution: Fire Barack Obama come November, 2012.